...I think Apple should support an installer so that users can download an application from the web and install it....
And have their users experience the same virus and Trojan troubles that Windows users do? If you need to download stuff from the web, you probably have a PC you can do that with. Apple has always cared and still does care a lot about user experience. If their iPhone users were allowed to download anything and everything from the Internet they would certainly get a worm or viruses because the iPod is such a popular device. If that happened, and it messed up the iPhone, guess who would be blamed? The iPhone is primarily a phone that just happens to do a lot of stuff that general-purpose computers also do, but it is not general purpose, like a PC.
(...Apple putting up a warning saying that horrible things could happen...)
They do something like that with the new OS 10.6, but I wish they would extend their signing procedure and App Store to the Mac as an option. Every reputable developer could choose to market their programs the same way as for the iPhone, but the Mac could still run programs just as it always has. I think a lot of people would buy guaranteed malware free software from such a store. The number of iPhone downloads demonstrates this.
....and not allowing it to multitask could be one of the most absurd things in IT history....
You are forgetting that you have an iPod, a music player, not a general purpose computer. We can see from the Windows experience, that an open general-purpose computer has a lot of problems with malware. If you need a general-purpose computer where you can install anything and everything, get a Windows computer or even a Macintosh or maybe you're a Linux booster. Security, as you know, is a trade-off between openness and a closed gated community. Apple has constructed a walled garden, where it is easier to keep predators out. When you buy an iPhone or iPod touch, you're also buying the walled garden that comes with it. Millions of people have shown with their wallet that they are willing to accept the walled garden that comes with the devices. If you are not one of those, just don't buy one. It's not like the other devices on the market don't also come with their own version of a walled garden.
In a small battery operated device, there are also other engineering trade-offs, such as multitasking functionality and battery life. Again, there are other devices that offer multitasking, so if you require that, buy one of those. You may not be a Wal-Mart customer, but apparently millions of people do their shopping there, even though the same merchandise is available elsewhere, albeit often for higher prices.
... Somehow I doubt that historical material will ever be written sourced from emails and instant messaging....
I think that this has more to do with the fact that paper and ink or even pencil are far more durable than any digital media. I still have some love letters that are recorded on 8 inch floppies that are no longer readable, that I wrote a long time ago and sent in printed form to the woman who has been my faithful wife all these years. She did not have a computer and wrote her replies on paper written in cursive handwriting. The printouts and her writing are still available to us. Because we moved at the beginning of the year we came across these personal historical documents which brought forth smiles and both of us.
You're right, in that correspondence by e-mail tends to be cryptic, fleeting short messages flying back and forth in cyberspace, rather than longer descriptive writings of earlier times. Historians a few hundred years from now will have slim pickings of our doings and history.
....Because the iPhone has a closed marketplace...
So exactly how is this bad? Nobody forces you to buy an iPhone. Just because iPhones sell by the millions because most users don't care; they just want a phone that works and does a lot of other good things. Most users, except those on/. apparently, buy the iPhone by the millions and don't care if every/. techie bought a Pre or Andriod. The users here who are interested in a so-called open market are relatively small minority to which Apple is more than happy to cede a small marketshare.
(...they took tethering away...) I don't think that this has as much to do with Apple as with AT&T, whose network is simply not up to the task of having computers downloading gigabytes of data through the iPhone. If the network is overloaded, it would impact normal iPhone users who don't care about tethering.
(...buy the commodity good known as the iPhone...)
Unlike Windows PCs, the iPhone or the Mac are not commodity products, but are very much proprietary integrated hardware and software devices. Users of these products have certain expectations of reliability and simplicity. Apple has every right and duty to their users, at least the vast majority of users, to preserve these aspects of their products. If they have to step on the toes of a few techies, who moan about the closed architecture, well isn't that just too bad. Apple worries about their customers, most of whom are not techies, but ordinary user Joe and Jane who want things to "just work". They don't want to futz around with their technical devices, but only use them for other purposes for which they were designed in the first place.
After all, you can't put a Honda engine into your Ford; at least not easily, though with enough effort you might be able to pull it off if you're a good mechanic.
Exactly with whom is Apple colluding here? They went to other network providers, but they all turned up their noses, because they were not going to give any cell phone manufacturer the opportunity to horn in on their closed business and sales models. Until Apple came along, cell phone manufacturers had little or nothing to say in the design or marketing of their devices. They were entirely dependent on the whims of their network providers, because that was the only way and still is mostly true of how all cell phones are sold even still today. Apple's iPhone certainty isn't the only one that is tied to particular network.
...the more everybody realizes how restrictive it is...
I think it is only here on/., where people are concerned with the restrictions on the on the iPhone. The ordinary John or Jane user just want an easy to use phone that has other neat capabilities. They read Apple's advertising about the fact that they have 60,000+ programs available for the iPhone, which the others can't boast about. The iPhone is not only a good phone, although its network at present has some people complaining, but a good gaming, Internet and e-mail platform as well. Oh yes, it also is an iPod and plays music well. Most of the users of the iPhone don't have the mindset of those who post on this forum. Only a very small, in fact extremely tiny minority of all the millions of iPhone users, are bothered by the fact that certain programs are not available on the app store, because Apple won't let them in their walled garden.
...the exclusivity is solely about maintaining market dominance....
When Apple first went to the major phone providers, they all turned up their noses and wanted all sorts of restrictions, except for a relatively small provider whose name I forget at the moment. That provider was, while they were still in negotiation with Apple, bought up by AT&T which then continued with a successful exclusive contract with Apple for two years. Verizon especially, rejected Apple's idea because traditionally they and other cell phone providers had ironclad control over what went on to their phones and what phones they would accept. With the Apple and their iPhone, it was the first time that a cell phone manufacturer had to say so in the marketing of their device. We can all thank Apple that they single-handedly busted ironclad control away from the network providers, when they took over marketing and design of their own product. The other cell phone manufacturers have been and still largely are not involved in the marketing of their own products. Before Apple came along with the iPhone, cell phones were closely tied and sold by the network providers. Why is it not that then already the FCC got involved? I think this whole thing is a case of sour grapes of Apple's competitors who want to throw a monkey wrench into Apple's business practices.
....Because there is no other store to sell your product in.....
There may be no legitimate store right now for non-jail broken iPhones, but there are a number of other phones on the market that you can buy if you don't like the iPhone for whatever reason. If you don't like any aspect of the iPhone, including any restrictions in the app store, neither Apple or anybody else twist your arm and forces you to buy an iPhone. If you do like an iPhone enough to shell out your hard-earned cash for, then you get the whole kit and caboodle including a in your opinion, limited store. Apple of course has a tremendous head start, as anyone who first comes to market with a new idea has, but if there are enough people like you, that don't like what Apple is doing with the app store and their iPhone, then the others that are starting up stores of their own for their own phones, will get your business. Apple is not a monopoly, as there is plenty of competition in the music business as well. It is not all that hard to put music on the iPod that was not purchased on iTunes, but came from your own CDs, even illegal music from the Internet or other legal music stores.
....I'm sorry, but we don't want your voice app in our store,...
How is this different from Wal-Mart saying: "we don't want to carry your (you name it) in our store and we don't have to give you reason why." The App store is Apple's, and they shouldn't have to give a reason as to why they accept or reject a particular item any more than we would tell Wal-Mart they must do so, or any other store.
....they can cause Apple and future app stores to be more open....
Why exactly should an online store be forced to carry merchandise that they don't want to, for whatever reason. That would be like legislating that brick-and-mortar stores are required by law to carry anybody's goods. A merchant and that includes Apple, doesn't have to give a reason to anybody why they will or will not not carry a particular item.
....my thermostat tells me I have to wait an hour. Grrr....
The thermostat won't tell you to wait an hour, but it might tell you that your electricity price for that hour would be double or triple what it would otherwise be. One thing you can be sure of though is that energy prices will not be any less, because somebody has to pay for that technology and guess who that will be -- -- you! It is very seldom that companies make big investments in order for you to save money.
....substantial technical barrier to people using another music store, either....
However, even music bought in another online store, such as Amazon, eventually, most likely, ends up on an iPod anyway. Apple doesn't make a whole lot of money on the iTunes store, but it is a vehicle to sell more iPods. Apple is in the business primarily of building and selling great hardware, such as the iPod, iPhone and Macintosh. The iTunes store is just a means to increase their sales of hardware.
...Look how eagerly Mac developers transitioned to x86....
Could that be because 90% of the world's computers were using x86? For a profit-making corporation like Microsoft, what advantage would there be in putting out a version of Windows that nobody would buy, because there is no application software. The whole point of the computer is not its operating system, but what actual work you can do with it. What good is a computer with a 24 or 30 hour battery life, if there are no programs available for it, or at least very few. It seems that most of the techies here on/. are enamored with one operating system or another, and are totally forgetting that an OS is only a means to an end, not in and of itself. The reason that Macs are selling rather well, despite their cost, is that it is easier to get work done without futzing around with the computer a lot.
Which if it is not, relegates the DRM processor to only running Linux. That is likely to be a very small market, that most manufacturers will not bother with. Of course, a computer manufacturer could do what Apple does, and write their own operating system, that is perhaps compatible with Windows programs or OSX programs. However, that is quite expensive and you have to have a lot of money to do.
....Once someone writes an entire fully-functional OS with absolutely no security vulnerabilities....
Which of course will never happen. The best security system I know to date is what Apple implemented for their iPhone. For one of those, or the iTouch also, every program gets inspected and signed by Apple before it will load. It is impossible, or at least very unlikely, for a nasty program to execute on the iPhone, unless of course the user deliberately hacked it.
Apple could extend that system to the Mac, except make it possible for it to be bypassed after a stern warning that this may be dangerous. They could have a warning something like: "this program has not been tested or signed by Apple and could be dangerous to your computer or your bank account. Install anyway, or cancel"? After such a warning to users still would have to enter their administrative password in order to proceed. Just as millions of iPhone users have clearly shown, many if not most people would be very glad to trade their freedom to install anything and everything on the computer at random, with the restrictions of getting all legitimate programs from the iTunes store. Non-malicious developers could also distribute their wares on discs, after Apple has approved and signed them for a reasonable fee. Apple is in a real good position to implement such an ultra-secure system for their computers, because unlike other manufacturers, they make their own system software.
...Both Mac and Linux users often feel their systems are immune...
There is a difference between being immune and being safer. Macs are definitely safer than Windows, all flavors of Windows. There are thousands of nasty programs for Windows, but you can count the number of such programs for Mac and for Linux on your fingers and toes. After about 10 years of patching and otherwise working on security, most computers including Windows are relatively resistant to being infected without the cooperation of the user. Any user, that has the ability to install software on their computer, also has the ability to install malware.
There is now no operating system and there were never will be, that can protect against the stupidity of a user. The closest we have come to that so far is in the iPhone and iTouch, where every piece of software on it goes through an inspection process and then signed by the manufacturer. I can just imagine how loud people would scream, especially those on/. if Microsoft were ever to implement such a system on Windows or even if Apple extended their system to the Mac.
...So, a vehicle that uses 1000 kwh of metered electricity...
That would require a separate meter for the charging circuit of an automobile, which would be quite expensive. A better solution would be to have a tax formula that takes into account size/weight, the type of vehicle, and whether it is registered in a largely rural, suburban and city environment and perhaps other factors. A heavier, more energy hungry car, would simply have a bigger multiplier to the base rate per mile. The DMV would collect your mileage information, which you certify to be true and correct, and charge you an annual tax along with your registration fee. If it is a large amount that would be hard to pay, they could divide that up into monthly installments which you could pay directly, have deducted from your bank account or your credit card. Such a system could be applied to all cars that do not pay a fuel tax at present. Nothing would have to be installed in your house or in your automobile.
....you'll see an explosion in public transportation...
It seems that public transportation advocates only ever consider cost of money, not time. Where I used to live in the Bay Area, there was a pretty good transit system, but still, a 35 minute trip by car would take one and a half hours by public transit, specifically bus. Someone who has to take the trip twice a day, would have almost 2 hours taken away from their life daily. That amounts to over 400 hours a year.
In rural areas, such as where we live, cars are essential. Of course, the government would like nothing better, than to herd everybody into cities, where they can more easily control them.
One of the poorest counties in the state of Oregon, where I happen to live, has better roads than one of the wealthiest counties in California where I used to live. All Oregon gas taxes are used for transportation related items, such as public transit and highway patrol.
is really the simplest method of collecting road taxes for cars that do not use gasoline. The gas tax has worked for many years, but as electric cars come online other means of collecting the tax will have to be found. Every car in every state has a license plate and is registered and the registration must be updated once every year or every two years. At that time the motorist reads the odometer, and under penalty of perjury writes the correct mileage on the registration form. The DMV then applies a formula that calculates the tax and gives the user the option of a payment system, say every month, so it isn't a big sudden payment burden. No big new bureaucratic system needs to be put into place.
It would be enforced on a state level, the same way the states enforce smog regulations. They just add the odometer reading to the report that you hand into the DMV as they collect the tax from you right then and there. There is no need for a fancy GPS system and all cars already have the basic equipment, namely an odometer. The odometer could be sealed, just like the electric meter on your house, so that tampering would be easily seen. A big enough fine for tampering would be a discouragement sufficient for most people. Really nothing new would have to be installed in any vehicle.
They don't have to install anything. Every car I have ever seen already has an odometer. Why not use that? They can vary per mile cost of the vehicle the same way you do now. They can have a multiplier for big heavy vehicles, which pay more per mile. They don't have to know where you've been, only how many miles in total a particular car traveled.
....Want to drive that 12MPG Excursion or F-350?...
You are forgetting that such vehicles already pay much more in gas taxes. Large heavy vehicles use more gas and thus pay more tax, but I suspect you want a nonlinear system, where the tax goes up even faster than the gas consumption. This is similar to how they charge utilities, at least electric power nowadays. It used to be that the more you use of something the cheaper it got, but now for many commodities is just the other way around.
I live here in Oregon and we have no such thing and I haven't even heard of it until now.
(...I shouldn't be taxed for driving around on my own property, should I?...)
Well right now, with the gas tax, you are taxed even if the car is idling in the driveway. So what's the difference? The gas tax is and has been a pretty fair tax. They kept the gas guzzling cars pay more than the light little cars. For electric cars they could institute a simple tax on the odometer reading, adjusted for location, size/weight of the car. For example, cars that are registered in metropolitan areas such as Portland, are required to have a smog certificate, whereas in rural areas they are exempt. They could make similar adjustments for various regions of the state for how much tax they charge per mile. That doesn't mean they have to know everywhere you travel. Except for an annual trip for a vacation, most people drive most miles within 50 to 70 miles of home. The idea of a GPS system in every automobile is simply over the top.
Slashdot Mirror
...I think Apple should support an installer so that users can download an application from the web and install it....
And have their users experience the same virus and Trojan troubles that Windows users do? If you need to download stuff from the web, you probably have a PC you can do that with. Apple has always cared and still does care a lot about user experience. If their iPhone users were allowed to download anything and everything from the Internet they would certainly get a worm or viruses because the iPod is such a popular device. If that happened, and it messed up the iPhone, guess who would be blamed? The iPhone is primarily a phone that just happens to do a lot of stuff that general-purpose computers also do, but it is not general purpose, like a PC.
(...Apple putting up a warning saying that horrible things could happen...)
They do something like that with the new OS 10.6, but I wish they would extend their signing procedure and App Store to the Mac as an option. Every reputable developer could choose to market their programs the same way as for the iPhone, but the Mac could still run programs just as it always has. I think a lot of people would buy guaranteed malware free software from such a store. The number of iPhone downloads demonstrates this.
....and not allowing it to multitask could be one of the most absurd things in IT history....
You are forgetting that you have an iPod, a music player, not a general purpose computer. We can see from the Windows experience, that an open general-purpose computer has a lot of problems with malware. If you need a general-purpose computer where you can install anything and everything, get a Windows computer or even a Macintosh or maybe you're a Linux booster. Security, as you know, is a trade-off between openness and a closed gated community. Apple has constructed a walled garden, where it is easier to keep predators out. When you buy an iPhone or iPod touch, you're also buying the walled garden that comes with it. Millions of people have shown with their wallet that they are willing to accept the walled garden that comes with the devices. If you are not one of those, just don't buy one. It's not like the other devices on the market don't also come with their own version of a walled garden.
In a small battery operated device, there are also other engineering trade-offs, such as multitasking functionality and battery life. Again, there are other devices that offer multitasking, so if you require that, buy one of those.
You may not be a Wal-Mart customer, but apparently millions of people do their shopping there, even though the same merchandise is available elsewhere, albeit often for higher prices.
... Somehow I doubt that historical material will ever be written sourced from emails and instant messaging....
I think that this has more to do with the fact that paper and ink or even pencil are far more durable than any digital media. I still have some love letters that are recorded on 8 inch floppies that are no longer readable, that I wrote a long time ago and sent in printed form to the woman who has been my faithful wife all these years. She did not have a computer and wrote her replies on paper written in cursive handwriting. The printouts and her writing are still available to us. Because we moved at the beginning of the year we came across these personal historical documents which brought forth smiles and both of us.
You're right, in that correspondence by e-mail tends to be cryptic, fleeting short messages flying back and forth in cyberspace, rather than longer descriptive writings of earlier times. Historians a few hundred years from now will have slim pickings of our doings and history.
....Because the iPhone has a closed marketplace...
So exactly how is this bad? Nobody forces you to buy an iPhone. Just because iPhones sell by the millions because most users don't care; they just want a phone that works and does a lot of other good things. Most users, except those on /. apparently, buy the iPhone by the millions and don't care if every /. techie bought a Pre or Andriod. The users here who are interested in a so-called open market are relatively small minority to which Apple is more than happy to cede a small marketshare.
(...they took tethering away...)
I don't think that this has as much to do with Apple as with AT&T, whose network is simply not up to the task of having computers downloading gigabytes of data through the iPhone. If the network is overloaded, it would impact normal iPhone users who don't care about tethering.
(...buy the commodity good known as the iPhone...)
Unlike Windows PCs, the iPhone or the Mac are not commodity products, but are very much proprietary integrated hardware and software devices. Users of these products have certain expectations of reliability and simplicity. Apple has every right and duty to their users, at least the vast majority of users, to preserve these aspects of their products. If they have to step on the toes of a few techies, who moan about the closed architecture, well isn't that just too bad. Apple worries about their customers, most of whom are not techies, but ordinary user Joe and Jane who want things to "just work". They don't want to futz around with their technical devices, but only use them for other purposes for which they were designed in the first place.
After all, you can't put a Honda engine into your Ford; at least not easily, though with enough effort you might be able to pull it off if you're a good mechanic.
....to keep them from colluding...
Exactly with whom is Apple colluding here? They went to other network providers, but they all turned up their noses, because they were not going to give any cell phone manufacturer the opportunity to horn in on their closed business and sales models. Until Apple came along, cell phone manufacturers had little or nothing to say in the design or marketing of their devices. They were entirely dependent on the whims of their network providers, because that was the only way and still is mostly true of how all cell phones are sold even still today. Apple's iPhone certainty isn't the only one that is tied to particular network.
...the more everybody realizes how restrictive it is...
I think it is only here on /., where people are concerned with the restrictions on the on the iPhone. The ordinary John or Jane user just want an easy to use phone that has other neat capabilities. They read Apple's advertising about the fact that they have 60,000+ programs available for the iPhone, which the others can't boast about. The iPhone is not only a good phone, although its network at present has some people complaining, but a good gaming, Internet and e-mail platform as well. Oh yes, it also is an iPod and plays music well.
Most of the users of the iPhone don't have the mindset of those who post on this forum. Only a very small, in fact extremely tiny minority of all the millions of iPhone users, are bothered by the fact that certain programs are not available on the app store, because Apple won't let them in their walled garden.
...the exclusivity is solely about maintaining market dominance....
When Apple first went to the major phone providers, they all turned up their noses and wanted all sorts of restrictions, except for a relatively small provider whose name I forget at the moment. That provider was, while they were still in negotiation with Apple, bought up by AT&T which then continued with a successful exclusive contract with Apple for two years. Verizon especially, rejected Apple's idea because traditionally they and other cell phone providers had ironclad control over what went on to their phones and what phones they would accept. With the Apple and their iPhone, it was the first time that a cell phone manufacturer had to say so in the marketing of their device. We can all thank Apple that they single-handedly busted ironclad control away from the network providers, when they took over marketing and design of their own product. The other cell phone manufacturers have been and still largely are not involved in the marketing of their own products. Before Apple came along with the iPhone, cell phones were closely tied and sold by the network providers. Why is it not that then already the FCC got involved? I think this whole thing is a case of sour grapes of Apple's competitors who want to throw a monkey wrench into Apple's business practices.
....Because there is no other store to sell your product in.....
There may be no legitimate store right now for non-jail broken iPhones, but there are a number of other phones on the market that you can buy if you don't like the iPhone for whatever reason. If you don't like any aspect of the iPhone, including any restrictions in the app store, neither Apple or anybody else twist your arm and forces you to buy an iPhone. If you do like an iPhone enough to shell out your hard-earned cash for, then you get the whole kit and caboodle including a in your opinion, limited store. Apple of course has a tremendous head start, as anyone who first comes to market with a new idea has, but if there are enough people like you, that don't like what Apple is doing with the app store and their iPhone, then the others that are starting up stores of their own for their own phones, will get your business. Apple is not a monopoly, as there is plenty of competition in the music business as well. It is not all that hard to put music on the iPod that was not purchased on iTunes, but came from your own CDs, even illegal music from the Internet or other legal music stores.
....I'm sorry, but we don't want your voice app in our store,...
How is this different from Wal-Mart saying: "we don't want to carry your (you name it) in our store and we don't have to give you reason why." The App store is Apple's, and they shouldn't have to give a reason as to why they accept or reject a particular item any more than we would tell Wal-Mart they must do so, or any other store.
....they can cause Apple and future app stores to be more open....
Why exactly should an online store be forced to carry merchandise that they don't want to, for whatever reason. That would be like legislating that brick-and-mortar stores are required by law to carry anybody's goods. A merchant and that includes Apple, doesn't have to give a reason to anybody why they will or will not not carry a particular item.
....my thermostat tells me I have to wait an hour. Grrr....
The thermostat won't tell you to wait an hour, but it might tell you that your electricity price for that hour would be double or triple what it would otherwise be. One thing you can be sure of though is that energy prices will not be any less, because somebody has to pay for that technology and guess who that will be -- -- you! It is very seldom that companies make big investments in order for you to save money.
....substantial technical barrier to people using another music store, either....
However, even music bought in another online store, such as Amazon, eventually, most likely, ends up on an iPod anyway. Apple doesn't make a whole lot of money on the iTunes store, but it is a vehicle to sell more iPods. Apple is in the business primarily of building and selling great hardware, such as the iPod, iPhone and Macintosh. The iTunes store is just a means to increase their sales of hardware.
....Just stop making previews available....
And have a little window will come up that explains that this preview is not available because ASCAP wanted to be paid for the preview.
...Look how eagerly Mac developers transitioned to x86....
Could that be because 90% of the world's computers were using x86? For a profit-making corporation like Microsoft, what advantage would there be in putting out a version of Windows that nobody would buy, because there is no application software. The whole point of the computer is not its operating system, but what actual work you can do with it. What good is a computer with a 24 or 30 hour battery life, if there are no programs available for it, or at least very few. It seems that most of the techies here on /. are enamored with one operating system or another, and are totally forgetting that an OS is only a means to an end, not in and of itself. The reason that Macs are selling rather well, despite their cost, is that it is easier to get work done without futzing around with the computer a lot.
....while still being able to run Windows....
Which if it is not, relegates the DRM processor to only running Linux. That is likely to be a very small market, that most manufacturers will not bother with. Of course, a computer manufacturer could do what Apple does, and write their own operating system, that is perhaps compatible with Windows programs or OSX programs. However, that is quite expensive and you have to have a lot of money to do.
....Once someone writes an entire fully-functional OS with absolutely no security vulnerabilities....
Which of course will never happen. The best security system I know to date is what Apple implemented for their iPhone. For one of those, or the iTouch also, every program gets inspected and signed by Apple before it will load. It is impossible, or at least very unlikely, for a nasty program to execute on the iPhone, unless of course the user deliberately hacked it.
Apple could extend that system to the Mac, except make it possible for it to be bypassed after a stern warning that this may be dangerous. They could have a warning something like: "this program has not been tested or signed by Apple and could be dangerous to your computer or your bank account. Install anyway, or cancel"? After such a warning to users still would have to enter their administrative password in order to proceed. Just as millions of iPhone users have clearly shown, many if not most people would be very glad to trade their freedom to install anything and everything on the computer at random, with the restrictions of getting all legitimate programs from the iTunes store. Non-malicious developers could also distribute their wares on discs, after Apple has approved and signed them for a reasonable fee. Apple is in a real good position to implement such an ultra-secure system for their computers, because unlike other manufacturers, they make their own system software.
...Both Mac and Linux users often feel their systems are immune...
There is a difference between being immune and being safer. Macs are definitely safer than Windows, all flavors of Windows. There are thousands of nasty programs for Windows, but you can count the number of such programs for Mac and for Linux on your fingers and toes. After about 10 years of patching and otherwise working on security, most computers including Windows are relatively resistant to being infected without the cooperation of the user. Any user, that has the ability to install software on their computer, also has the ability to install malware.
There is now no operating system and there were never will be, that can protect against the stupidity of a user. The closest we have come to that so far is in the iPhone and iTouch, where every piece of software on it goes through an inspection process and then signed by the manufacturer. I can just imagine how loud people would scream, especially those on /. if Microsoft were ever to implement such a system on Windows or even if Apple extended their system to the Mac.
...So, a vehicle that uses 1000 kwh of metered electricity...
That would require a separate meter for the charging circuit of an automobile, which would be quite expensive. A better solution would be to have a tax formula that takes into account size/weight, the type of vehicle, and whether it is registered in a largely rural, suburban and city environment and perhaps other factors. A heavier, more energy hungry car, would simply have a bigger multiplier to the base rate per mile. The DMV would collect your mileage information, which you certify to be true and correct, and charge you an annual tax along with your registration fee. If it is a large amount that would be hard to pay, they could divide that up into monthly installments which you could pay directly, have deducted from your bank account or your credit card. Such a system could be applied to all cars that do not pay a fuel tax at present. Nothing would have to be installed in your house or in your automobile.
....you'll see an explosion in public transportation...
It seems that public transportation advocates only ever consider cost of money, not time. Where I used to live in the Bay Area, there was a pretty good transit system, but still, a 35 minute trip by car would take one and a half hours by public transit, specifically bus. Someone who has to take the trip twice a day, would have almost 2 hours taken away from their life daily. That amounts to over 400 hours a year.
In rural areas, such as where we live, cars are essential. Of course, the government would like nothing better, than to herd everybody into cities, where they can more easily control them.
...Every time you see a pothole...
One of the poorest counties in the state of Oregon, where I happen to live, has better roads than one of the wealthiest counties in California where I used to live. All Oregon gas taxes are used for transportation related items, such as public transit and highway patrol.
...this whole odometer thing...
is really the simplest method of collecting road taxes for cars that do not use gasoline. The gas tax has worked for many years, but as electric cars come online other means of collecting the tax will have to be found. Every car in every state has a license plate and is registered and the registration must be updated once every year or every two years. At that time the motorist reads the odometer, and under penalty of perjury writes the correct mileage on the registration form. The DMV then applies a formula that calculates the tax and gives the user the option of a payment system, say every month, so it isn't a big sudden payment burden. No big new bureaucratic system needs to be put into place.
...How would it be enforced?...
It would be enforced on a state level, the same way the states enforce smog regulations. They just add the odometer reading to the report that you hand into the DMV as they collect the tax from you right then and there. There is no need for a fancy GPS system and all cars already have the basic equipment, namely an odometer. The odometer could be sealed, just like the electric meter on your house, so that tampering would be easily seen. A big enough fine for tampering would be a discouragement sufficient for most people. Really nothing new would have to be installed in any vehicle.
....they can install a meter on the vehicle...
They don't have to install anything. Every car I have ever seen already has an odometer. Why not use that? They can vary per mile cost of the vehicle the same way you do now. They can have a multiplier for big heavy vehicles, which pay more per mile. They don't have to know where you've been, only how many miles in total a particular car traveled.
....Want to drive that 12MPG Excursion or F-350?...
You are forgetting that such vehicles already pay much more in gas taxes. Large heavy vehicles use more gas and thus pay more tax, but I suspect you want a nonlinear system, where the tax goes up even faster than the gas consumption. This is similar to how they charge utilities, at least electric power nowadays. It used to be that the more you use of something the cheaper it got, but now for many commodities is just the other way around.
...as Oregon evidently has...
I live here in Oregon and we have no such thing and I haven't even heard of it until now.
(...I shouldn't be taxed for driving around on my own property, should I?...)
Well right now, with the gas tax, you are taxed even if the car is idling in the driveway. So what's the difference? The gas tax is and has been a pretty fair tax. They kept the gas guzzling cars pay more than the light little cars. For electric cars they could institute a simple tax on the odometer reading, adjusted for location, size/weight of the car. For example, cars that are registered in metropolitan areas such as Portland, are required to have a smog certificate, whereas in rural areas they are exempt. They could make similar adjustments for various regions of the state for how much tax they charge per mile. That doesn't mean they have to know everywhere you travel. Except for an annual trip for a vacation, most people drive most miles within 50 to 70 miles of home. The idea of a GPS system in every automobile is simply over the top.